Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
x contents
Document 62 (20 July 1654) e oath by King John Casimir,
taken in Warsaw in the presence of the Crimean envoy,
Süleyman Agha ............................................................................ 972
Document 63 (20 July 1654) e oath by the senators and
high ocials of the Commonwealth, taken in Warsaw in
the presence of the Crimean envoy, Süleyman Agha ........... 973
Document 64 (11 November–10 December 1654) e
‘ahdname sent by Khan Mehmed IV Giray to King
John Casimir [Facs. XII] ............................................................ 974
Document 65 (3 September 1666) e oath by Dedesh Agha,
the Crimean envoy, taken in Warsaw ..................................... 982
Document 66 (16 October 1667) e Crimean instrument of
the Treaty of Podhajce (Pidhajci) [Facs. XIII] ....................... 984
Document 67 (16 October 1667) e oath by the
Crimean plenipotentiaries sworn at Pidhajci (Podhajce)
[Facs. XIV] .................................................................................... 991
Document 68 (16 October 1667) e oath by the Polish
commissioners sworn at Pidhajci (Podhajce) [Facs. XV] .... 993
Document 69 (15 April 1668) e instrument, conrming the
Treaty of Podhajce (Pidhajci), issued by Khan Adil Giray
and invoking his oath taken in Baghchasaray in the
presence of two Polish residents ............................................... 995
Document 70 (23 October 1672) Guarantee issued by the
khan along with the Ottoman sultan’s ‘ahdname
[Facs. XVI] ................................................................................... 999
Document 71 (6 December 1742) e instrument of peace
(yarlıq) sent by Khan Selamet II Giray to King Augustus III
[Facs. XVII] .................................................................................. 1001
Abbreviations ................................................................................... 1009
Selected Bibliography ...................................................................... 1013
Index .................................................................................................. 1035
Facsimiles
Maps
Map 1 Poland, Lithuania, and the Crimean Khanate around 1503
Map 2 Poland-Lithuania and the Crimean Khanate around 1648
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A large book must incur many debts. While looking back, the present
author is more ready than ever to acknowledge the inspiring atmo-
sphere constantly reigning in his home scholarly milieu in Warsaw
and the benet of fruitful contacts and generous fellowships that have
made research abroad incomparably easier within just one generation.
Factors that—directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously—
inuenced the present study, are many. Among the colleagues, students
and friends who helped shape the present book with their advice or
scholarly expertise, fruitful discussion, and even such “trivial” things
like ordering a scan from a manuscript or sending a rare or a recently
published book, I would like to specially thank Meinolf Arens, Jerzy
Axer, Tomasz Bohun, Almut Bues, Tatiana Cojocaru, Borys Čerkas,
Sagit Faizov, Mateusz Falkowski, Hieronim Grala, Oleksa Hajvoronskyj,
Mária Ivanics, Rafał Jaworski, Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Michael
Khodarkovsky, Svetlana Kirillina, Edmund Kizik, Kirill Kočegarov,
Maria Koczerska, Wojciech Kriegseisen, Natalia Królikowska,
Gediminas Lesmaitis, Aleksandr Malov, Masako Matsui, Mihai Maxim,
Mixail Mejer, Włodzimierz Mędrzecki, Vitalij Myxajlovs’kyj, Sándor
Papp, Zoa Smułkowa, Jarosław Stolicki, Elżbieta Święcicka, Hacer
Topaktaş, Vadim Trepavlov, Michał Tymowski, Gilles Veinstein,
Aleksandr Vinogradov, Marek Wagner, Michał Wasiucionek, Piotr
Węcowski, Filip Wolański, Anna Xoroškevič, Il’ja Zajcev, and Andrzej
Zakrzewski.
Even more credit should be given to Andrij Danylenko for his help in
solving the puzzles of old Ruthenian language, to Marek Janicki for his
help with medieval Latin and sharing his enviable erudition, to Henryk
Jankowski for his unusual knowledge of Turkic languages and unlim-
ited willingness to explain their peculiarities to the present author who
aer all is not a linguist, to Piotr Salwa for his help with vernacular
renaissance Italian, and to Andrzej Cichal for drawing excellent maps.
Needless to say, any possible mistakes or misspellings that may remain
in the text are entirely the author’s responsibility.
xii acknowledgments
Separate thanks should go to Suraiya Faroqhi and Halil Inalcık,
who at one time both acted as mentors with whom the present author
was lucky to study, for allowing the present book into the Ottoman
Heritage series. It will probably take some time until the Crimean Tatar
studies will be able to aord a series of their own.
e author’s home institution, the Institute of History of the University
of Warsaw, subsidized his scholarly travels and contributed towards
the costs of publication. Many thanks go to the Director and Sta of
the Main Archives of Early Acts (AGAD) in Warsaw for their assis-
tance and kind permission to reproduce the documents held in this
collection. While in Moscow, the author enjoyed both institutional
assistance and great hospitability at the Institute of Asia and Africa
at Moscow State University. A large part of this book was written in
Sapporo, at the Slavic Research Center of Hokkaido University, which
provided optimal working conditions, including a good library and a
possibility to experience the Japanese onsen culture in the incredible
(though somewhat rainy) mountain scenery.
My wife, Zosia, and my son, Szymon, were with me for all that time,
even if the book is actually older than Szymon. ey provided me
with constant joy and support even though my son found it hard to
understand why daddy was so oen locked up in his room and kept
mercilessly pounding at the door. It seems that until respective minis-
tries introduce a compulsory celibate for all male and female members
of the academia (by far a cheaper solution than fair salaries), writing a
scholarly book will never be easy for all those involved. e good news
for my folks is that the book is out now.
INTRODUCTION
Merely a decade ago, my older son, then in elementary school, came
to me with his homework and asked to check whether his answers
were correct. One ll in the blank question asked for three neighbor-
ing states with whom Poland had led wars in the 17th century. His
answer was Russia, Turkey, i.e., the Ottoman Empire, and the Tatars,
i.e., the Crimean Khanate. It occurred to me that perhaps his textbook
mentioned Sweden rather than the Crimean Khanate, and I proved
right. Nevertheless, my son was not mistaken. In 1592, when Mus-
covian diplomats learned about a projected alliance between Stock-
holm and Baghchasaray, they tried to persuade the khan that the king
of Sweden was “poor and hungry,” unworthy of the khan’s friendship.
1
e tsar had many reasons to fear the Tatars more than the Swedes
as only a year earlier the Crimean formidable cavalry had pillaged the
suburbs of Moscow. In the Muscovian diplomatic ceremonial of that
time, the khan still ranked higher than the king of Sweden.
Certainly, the subsequent military triumphs of Gustavus Adolphus
had changed the balance of power in Eastern Europe, so I assured
myself that my son heard of Sweden as well. Yet, in his exercise book
there were only three blanks to be lled. He asked whether he should
erase the Tatars and enter Sweden instead but I resolved that it would
be a lesson of conformism and pupils should be rather praised than
punished for knowing more than is written in their textbooks. Aer
all, his answer was correct.
On the following day, it turned out that it was not, at least for his
history teacher, who did not acknowledge his third answer as correct.
Until today, I bear the burden of losing my son’s condence at an
early stage and exposing him to a bitter lesson of life. Nevertheless, I
hope that this book will contribute to a change of the still common
stereotypical view of the Crimean Tatars as semi-illiterate predators,
deprived of any real culture, not to mention a state, a sophisticated
chancery, and diplomats skilled in international relations.
1
Leonid Juzefovič, Put’ posla. Russkij posol’skij obyčaj. Obixod. Ėtiket. Ceremonial:
konec XV-pervaja polovina XVII v. (St. Petersburg, 2007), p. 247.
xiv introduction
To be sure, the Crimean Khanate was an annoying neighbor.
A detailed study of the material and demographic losses suered by
Poland-Lithuania in result of the Tatar raids committed in the years
1605–1633, by far not the uniquely violent period in the relations
between the two states, disclosed that out of the 29 years covered by
the study only 12 passed without any raids.
2
A eld research conducted
in 1948 in a number of Polish villages near Rzeszów, a region once
distant from the Commonwealth’s southeastern border and admit-
tedly not the one most exposed to Tatar raids, revealed a traumatic
memory of the seventeenth-century Tatar raids that almost overshad-
owed more recent experiences of WW1 and WW2. Anybody familiar
with the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude towards the inviolability of
marriage, expressed even today, will be persuaded how demographi-
cally serious were the Tatar raids on learning that in 1624 a Polish
bishop of Przemyśl allowed those members of his ock, whose hus-
bands or wives had been kidnapped by the Tatars and apparently still
alive as slaves in the Crimea, to remarry. A calculation, once proposed
by Halil Inalcık on the basis of Ottoman tax registers and conrmed
by the present author on the evidence of Russian and Polish sources,
suggests that the number of Slavic slaves transported across the Black
Sea between 1500 and 1700 might have approached two million and
surpassed the number of Black slaves transported in the same period
across the Atlantic.
3
2
According to the author, these were the years 1606, 1608–1611, 1614, 1619, 1625,
1627–1628, and 1630–1631; admittedly, a large portion of the raids committed in the
above period were eected by the Nogay and Tatar inhabitants of Budjak who oen
disobeyed the khan’s authority; see Maurycy Horn, Skutki ekonomiczne najazdów tatar-
skich z lat 1605–1633 na Ruś Czerwoną (Wrocław – Warsaw – Cracow, 1964), p. 11.
3
Cf. Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, “Slave hunting and slave redemption as a business
enterprise: the northern Black Sea region in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries,”
Oriente Moderno XXV n.s. (LXXXVI), 1 (2006) = e Ottomans and Trade. Edited
by E. Boyar and K. Fleet (Rome, 2006): 149–159. e average number of Polish-
Lithuanian and Muscovian subjects kidnapped each year by the Tatars might have
approached 10,000. If the proposed average number seems inated, one must keep in
mind that in the years of full-scale military campaigns the actual numbers were much
larger. A recent detailed study by Andrzej Gliwa shows that in 1648, solely in the
region of Przemyśl (Pol. ziemia przemyska) the demographic losses exceeded 10,000.
Out of 931 villages existing in that region, 426 were raided (of which 34 were entirely
destroyed) by the Tatar-Cossack coalition; see idem, “Najazd tatarsko-kozacki na Ruś
Czerwoną w 1648 r. Straty materialne i demograczne na terenie ziemi przemyskiej,”
Rocznik Przemyski 45 (2009), no. 1, pp. 3–120, esp. pp. 52, 60, 120, and the appended
map.
introduction xv
Michael Khodarkovsky refers to “the towns not built and elds not
plowed” while asking to what extent the Tatar raids were responsible
for Russia’s weak urbanization in comparison to Western Europe.
4
Prevented by the Crimean Tatar military strength from reaching the
warmer Black Sea, Russia could still nd compensation in less hospi-
table Siberia and one might argue that, if not for the Crimean Khanate,
the Russian drive towards the Pacic Ocean would have occurred at a
slower pace, if it had occurred at all. No similar compensation oered
itself to Poland-Lithuania, and it is its southern provinces, inhabited
mostly by Ruthenians (later called Ukrainians) and constituting the
present-day Ukraine, which suered the most from the Tatar raids.
No wonder that the Tatars were rarely liked by their northern
neighbors. In 1618, a Polish publicist, Szymon Starowolski (himself
of Ruthenian origin), compared the Tatars to locusts and lice and
proposed their ejection from the Crimea.
5
More projects followed in
the following decades and in the 1640s the governments in Warsaw
and Moscow seriously contemplated a joint conquest of the Khan-
ate’s lands. Nevertheless, it soon proved, like many times earlier and
aerwards, that mutual controversies were stronger than the declared
Christian solidarity and in 1654 the tsar turned against Poland-Lithua-
nia, while the khan resolved to support the latter. e Crimean loyalty,
demonstrated during the so-called “long alliance” (1654–1666), helped
the Commonwealth to survive and earned the Tatars long-lasting grat-
itude among Polish historians,
6
even though the alliance was followed
by a series of new hostilities, when the khans stood at the Porte’s side
in the Polish-Ottoman wars of the late 17th century.
e Tatars did not fare well in the opinion of the European Enlight-
enment. Emeric de Vattel, the famous Swiss lawyer who had entered the
service of Augustus III, the king of Poland and the elector of Saxony,
published in 1758 in London his monumental Law of Nations, where
he maintained that: “those peoples, such as [. . .] certain modern Tar-
tars who, though dwelling in fertile countries, disdain the cultivation
4
Michael Khodarkovsky, Russia’s Steppe Frontier. e Making of a Colonial Empire,
1500–1800 (Bloomington, 2002), pp. 223–224.
5
Szymon Starowolski, “Pobudka abo rada na zniesienie Tatarów perekopskich,” in:
idem, Wybór z pism. Edited by I. Lewandowski (Wrocław, 1991), p. 168.
6
For the term “long alliance,” coined by Zbigniew Wójcik, see idem, “Some prob-
lems of Polish-Tatar relations in the seventeenth century. e nancial aspects of
the Polish-Tatar alliance in the years 1654–1666,” Acta Poloniae Historica 13 (1966):
87–102, esp. p. 89.
xvi introduction
of the soil and prefer to live by plunder, fail in their duty to them-
selves, injure their neighbors, and deserve to be exterminated like wild
beasts of prey (méritent d’être exterminés, commes des bêtes féroces et
nuisibles).”
7
When the Crimean Khanate was annexed by Russia in
1783, few Western intellectuals would disagree with Catherine II, who
praised this move as the triumph of civilization.
Paradoxically, Poland-Lithuania did not live much longer and
was dismembered between St. Petersburg, Berlin, and Vienna in the
three successive partitions of 1772, 1793, and 1795. To much regret,
historians rarely trace the careers of such brilliant Russian generals
and diplomats as Aleksandr Suvorov and Osip Igelström in the con-
text of their deeds in both war theatres: the Crimean-Ottoman and the
Polish ones.
By the late 19th century, the cult of real politics, assisted by social
Darwinism, helped to promote the image of the Crimean Khanate as
well as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as unruly states and
anarchic societies, who in fact deserved their fate of being swallowed
by more eective neighbors. Typical for that period is the classical
monograph by Vasilij Smirnov entitled “e Crimean Khanate under
the suzerainty of the Ottoman Porte.”
8
By stressing the “Ottoman
suzerainty,” Smirnov advertently pointed to the fact that the Khan-
ate had never been really independent and the Tatars, immature for a
home rule, in fact beneted by escaping the despotic and corrupt yoke
of the sultan and entering the benign and civilized rule of the tsar. Had
Edward Said studied Russian history, he would have hardly found a
better example of an orientalist scholar than Smirnov.
9
7
Emeric de Vattel, Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à
la conduite et aux aaires des nations et des souverains (London, 1758), vol. I, p. 78
[reprinted along with the English translation by Charles Fenwick in the three-volume
edition: e Classics of International Law. Edited by J. Brown Scott (Washington,
1916); for the English translation of this fragment, see vol. 3, p. 38]; the above passage,
which further goes on justifying the extermination of the North American Indians
(though not those from Peru and Mexico who cultivated the soil), is also quoted in:
Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the World. Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and
France c. 1500–c. 1800 (New Haven and London, 1995), pp. 78–79.
8
Vasilij Smirnov, Krymskoe xanstvo pod verxovenstvom Otomanskoj porty do
načala XVIII veka (St. Petersburg, 1887); followed by the second part entitled Krym-
skoe xanstvo pod verxovenstvom Otomanskoj porty v XVIII v. do prisoedinenija ego
k Rossii, in: Zapiski Odesskago Obščestva istorii i drevnostej, vol. 15 (Odessa, 1889):
152–403; both volumes were recently republished in 2005.
9
For a proposal to look at the Russian imperial experience through Said’s lenses,
cf. Ewa ompson, Imperial knowledge: Russian literature and colonialism (Westport,
Connecticut, 2000).
introduction xvii
e “colonial” perspective, typically promoted by victorious con-
querors, also gained popularity among numerous members of “native”
intelligentsias, such as the Crimean Tatar Ismail Bey Gaspiralı or his
Polish contemporary Aleksander Świętochowski, who accepted the
Spencerian motto of the “survival of the ttest.” Critical towards
the past of their respective societies, they aimed to modernize them
through education and were ready to adopt models from the West,
and even—if necessary—from Russia.
WW1, culminating in a series of revolutions and state implosions,
put in question the Enlightened European rationalism, so much praised
by Max Weber shortly before the war’s outbreak. It also gave a chance
to rebuild ancient states, seemingly condemned to oblivion. e ter-
ritory of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had turned
by then into a breeding ground of conicting modern nationalisms,
which could all claim their roots in medieval and early modern past.
e foundation (or restoration) of the now separate (and mutually
conicted) republics of Poland and Lithuania in 1918 proved more
durable, but short-lived independence was also declared by Belaru-
sians and Ukrainians, the descendants of ancient Ruthenians, trans-
formed by then into modern nations by their respective intelligentsias.
Also the Crimean Tatars had their moment of spotlight and in 1917
summoned a local parliament under the traditional medieval name:
Kurultay. e extension of surage to Crimean Tatar women was not
only unprecedented in the Muslim world, but preceded by almost
three years the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and
by almost thirty years a similar reform in France.
10
Although the Tatars failed to gain independence, historical studies
on the Tatar past blossomed in the rst decade of the Soviet Union.
ey were conducted in a relatively liberal atmosphere by Russian,
Ukrainian, and Tatar scholars. Yet, few of these scholars were to survive
the Stalinist hecatomb that followed. Let us invoke just a few academ-
ics, whose studies—oen suddenly interrupted—are cited throughout
the present volume: Mixail Xudjakov, a historian of the Kazan Khan-
ate, arrested on 9 September 1936 and executed on 19 December of
the same year as a “Trockist;”
11
Aleksandr Samojlovič, a prominent
10
Cf. Brian Glyn Williams, e Crimean Tatars: the diaspora experience and the
forging of a nation (Leiden, 2001), p. 340.
11
See the biographic note by Mirkasym Usmanov in: Mixail Xudjakov, Očerki po
istorii Kazanskogo xanstva (Moscow, 1991 [rst published in 1923]), pp. 5–9.
xviii introduction
turkologist and the director of the Oriental Institute of the Soviet
Academy of Sciences, arrested on 3 October 1937 and executed on
13 February 1938 as a “Japanese spy;”
12
Ahatanhel Kryms’kyj, a leading
Ukrainian turkologist, arrested in July 1941, who perished in prison in
Kazakhstan in January 1942. e last days of Vladimir Syroečkovskij,
a brilliant Russian historian, whose insights into the structure of the
Crimean society are still surprisingly fresh, are even less known. Fedir
Petrun’, a Ukrainian scholar who painstakingly studied the historical
geography of the Black Sea steppe, was luckier and survived the repres-
sions, but discontinued his academic activity. His research remained
almost completely forgotten until it was republished in 1993, in the
Ukrainian journal Sxidnyj svit that was also restored to life aer sixty
years of silence.
en followed WW2 with its demographic and material losses that
particularly aected Eastern Europe. If it were not enough, in 1944 the
whole Crimean Tatar nation was collectively accused of collaboration
with the Nazis and deported to Central Asia by the Soviet authorities.
In the following y years, few publications appeared in the Soviet
Union that would seriously treat the Crimean Khanate, and even
those few ones were embellished with obligatory Marxist-Leninist jar-
gon mixed with old imperial claims, adopted by then by the ocially
revived Russian nationalism. To give a few examples of small “tricks”
detectable even in the most valuable monographs published in that
period: when Boris Grekov and Aleksandr Jakubovskij published their
monograph on the Golden Horde, they provided it with the title that
unmistakably invokes the “orientalist” discourse: “e Golden Horde
and its Downfall” (cf. the classical topos of decline or fall in the “ori-
entalist” historiography of the Ottoman Empire).
13
In turn, the title of
the painstaking study by Aleksej Novosel’skij reads: “e Struggle of
the Muscovian state with the Tatars in the rst half of the 17th cen-
tury,” as if only focusing on the struggle excused the author’s interest
12
On the arrest and execution of Samojlovič, see Fedor Ašnin, Vladimir Alpatov,
Dmitrij Nasilov, Repressirovannaja tjurkologija (Moscow, 2002), pp. 7–20; the fates of
numerous turcologists, executed in the 1930s, are also described in a recent book by
Ahmet Buran, Kurşunlanan türkoloji (Ankara, 2010) [rst published in 2007].
13
Boris Grekov and Aleksandr Jakubovskij, Zolotaja Orda i eë padenie (Moscow –
Leningrad, 1950) [a revised and enlarged version of the rst edition that had appeared
in 1937].
introduction xix
in the Muscovian-Crimean relations.
14
As late as in 1987, Gennadij
Sanin avored his monograph on the mid-seventeenth-century rela-
tions between Moscow and Baghchasaray with a mixture of biased
judgments on the primitive and parasitic character of the Crimean
economy, strengthened by a quotation from Friedrich Engels on Rus-
sia’s “progressive” role in the Orient.
15
To be sure, all the above mono-
graphs are still useful today, although they must be read with a grain
of salt. A much worse image was oered by Soviet encyclopedic and
popular books, which refuted the Tatars’ claims to legitimate state-
hood and “reduced the Crimean Khanate to a predatory nest acting
under the wings of the Turkish emperor.”
16
Against the above background, it comes as a surprise that in the
same period a leading Tatar scholar, Mirkasym Usmanov, managed to
publish a monograph that not only met the highest scholarly standards
but was entirely devoid of usual dismissing comments on the Tatar
past. It certainly helped that Usmanov published his book in Kazan
and focused on a relatively “safe” and less politicized topic, namely
diplomatics and chancery. Besides, he consciously preferred the term
ulus Džuči to the more widely known “Golden Horde,” not only as
more scholarly correct but also in the hope to avoid negative connota-
tions that the term “Golden Horde” usually evoked among censors.
17
Aer the fall of the Soviet Union, ocial barriers to study the Tatar
and Turkic past largely disappeared and monographs treating its vari-
ous aspects mushroomed in the recent two decades in the Russian
Federation. Anna Xoroškevič and Aleksandr Vinogradov reminded
that the Russian-Crimean relations had not always been hostile,
18
while
Il’ja Zajcev and Vadim Trepavlov restored the memory of the Khanate
of Astrakhan and the Nogay Horde.
19
While all the above studies were
14
Aleksej Novosel’skij, Bor’ba Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami v pervoj
polovine XVII veka (Moscow – Leningrad, 1948).
15
Gennadij Sanin, Otnošenija Rossii i Ukrainy s Krymskim xanstvom v seredine
XVII veka (Moscow, 1987), pp. 15–16 and 234–236.
16
Cf. Williams, e Crimean Tatars, p. 41.
17
Oral communication to the author in Kazan in April 2008; Usmanov’s mono-
graph: Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv. (Kazan, 1979), will be repeatedly
invoked in the present study.
18
Anna Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym. Ot sojuza k protivostojaniju. Konec XV—načalo XVI vv.
(Moscow, 2001); Aleksandr Vinogradov, Russko-krymskie otnošenija: 50–e—vtoraja
polovina 70–x godov XVI veka (Moscow, 2007), 2 vols.
19
Il’ja Zajcev, Astraxanskoe xanstvo (Moscow, 2004); Vadim Trepavlov, Istorija
Nogajskoj Ordy (Moscow, 2001).